Re: "Government dictates cannot move economics"
I'm sorry to inform the good doctor that we use tax policy, subsidies, government contracts, bond offerings, and especially THE FEDERAL RESERVE to dictate or "move" economics all the time - local and national. There's a yellow history book in DP's study. It tells one all about the gilded age. Perhaps DP should review what happens under a poor regulatory environment. One can surely attribute prosperity to entrpreneurship, but ignoring sound regulatory policy only tells half the story.
Let's use subsidies as an example of the benefits of artificially supporting the price of a commodity with taxes. In this case your income taxes support a price above and beyond the "real price" of a good. The subsidies allow purchase and storage of a bumper crop, so that in lean years (which often follow bumper crops) there is adequate feed in the system. It all works quite well to stabilize commodity prices so as to insure there's a wealth of corn to feed the tasty livestock on Turco's shelves. Evidently our republican administration is quite aware of this, having fully supported recent farm bills.
A more appropriate example (or analogy) is cigarette taxes. In this case, the price is supported way, way above the real price of the good. Many will testify from personal experience (author included) that the policy helps to reduce participation in an unhealthy practice. The secondary benefits of increased productivity should also be realized. On the other hand, freezing taxes, a la proposition 13, can have a negative effect on an entire industry, stifling growth by inflating real estate prices, thus restricting incentives to relocate. Even the paragon of business virtue, Mr. Warren Buffett himself feels that this is poor public policy.
Western Europe has been taxing petrol heavy for decades. I don't see revolution in the streets or heads on pikes. Instead I see more fuel efficient cars, and more mass transit. Mmmmm, how can this be?
Perhaps DP should be reminded that CAFE standards worked until industry lobbyists created loopholes - convenient blinders I suppose. So the law of unintended consequences has intended effects after all.
Instead of acknowledging and accepting what is patently obvious to an inductive thinker, DP launches on an unsolicited history lesson waxed with political side stories and contributory effects, but sorely deficient in the truth. The Irish starved because the potato crops failed! it was unsustainable! They relied on a single means of nourishment instead of diversifying and planning. Sound familiar? Jesus.
Then it's back to the walk the walk deal: please refer to AAS's previous posting, thank you. The author wishes not to engage DP in a stupid pissing match on who's lifestyle is ecologically sound, that's not the point. Please quit the silly bear baiting.
DP seems prone to embellishment. As for a "mind bending" depression, prove it! This writer knows that DPNY is not an economist. Furthermore, DPNY would have one believe that AAS advocates draconian imposition of $2.00/gallon taxes, immediate confiscation of wealth, and fair redistribution to the proletariat. DP will not paint AAS as an anarchist, communist, socialist, etc. The truth is that AAS has voted republican since his first election in 1980. It seems moreover that DPNY has diverted himself recently at a right fork in the road (after over-correction on the left shoulder) and has embarked on a libertarian-utopian 16-lane into an ugly place. And all the while the radio is blaring vehement diatribe about the pernicious plans of the "wacko environmentalists".
OK, that's enough. The author has stated his piece. And like O'Reilly, DP can have the last word.... Go ahead, dig yourself deeper.
Thursday, January 15, 2004
Congratulations Dr. S. You actually did offer a real suggestion as opposed to mere mindless ravings you’ve been pushing out lately (althought your ad hominen attacks smack more of blind rage than serious discourse). There is only one problem with a massive Federal intervention to change American behavior vis a vis energy consumption: they haven’t worked.
The CAFÉ standards are the most notable example of the Law of Unintended Consequences manifesting itself. Change the laws and make cars more fuel efficient. Great. Then people switch to trucks because these cars do not meet their needs.
Government dictates can not move economics. Price controls – and imposing taxes above and beyond the “real price” of the good or service is price fixing – never work. The actual cost of a barrel of crude from Saudi Arabia without OPEC’s intervention is about $2 a barrel. Raising taxes on fuel – Al Gore’s mantra for almost decade – would plunge the US and most of Western Europe into a depression the likes of which hasn’t been seen in 70 years. Even if such a measure were attempt, it would result in revolution, and the tax raiser and their advocates would end up with the heads on pikes.
However, advocacy of such a position is wonderfully attractive as it is essentially cost-free. Such a thing would never happen so its supporters can scream all the want to without ever having to face the consequences. It’s easy for one to be for if one never has to pay for it.
As for suggestions that mass transit could somehow replace the car, this is patently impossible. Even in Japan, an island nation far more congested than America, people still have cars and still drive them. Gas prices hover at .90 cents per liter, or $4 per gallon. And these people have no petroleum reserves at all.
Government dictates are not always benign and are frequently detrimental. The rise of fascism in Europe, was a function of government intervention. The French (and Woodrow Wilson, that distinguish academic) demanded that Germany pay reparations to the victors of the Great War, an act which bankrupted the country and set the hyper-inflationary cycle we are both familiar with. Germany did not melt down from within, but from without. The Irish had plenty of food during the famine years, but the government in London forced the Irish tenant farmer to export what they could produce for the mother country and the expense of the Irish countryside. And the Irish haven’t forgotten this to this day.
As for this little piece
If you really wanted to do you part, then you would lead by example, rather than rant that everyone else has to change their ways in order to conform to your vision of the world. I heat my house with wood, and will add solar this year if market conditions allow. My wife takes mass transit to work daily and I work from home. Great. If my neighbor drives a Hummer, fine. I might think him a pig, but this is America, and he can do as he pleases.
Look, conservation is good thing. Plowing resources into finding alternatives is also a good thing. Launching the country into a mind-bending depression through government dictates to assuage the boomer guilt concerning undeserved prosperity does not in any way resemble the common good. It is merely one set of people telling another set of people how to live.
Pushing pistons is the way the world works. Until there is a real economically feasible alternative (as opposed to one offered in light of artificially inflated energy prices), petrol will be the fuel that powers the wheels of industry.
dpny
The CAFÉ standards are the most notable example of the Law of Unintended Consequences manifesting itself. Change the laws and make cars more fuel efficient. Great. Then people switch to trucks because these cars do not meet their needs.
Government dictates can not move economics. Price controls – and imposing taxes above and beyond the “real price” of the good or service is price fixing – never work. The actual cost of a barrel of crude from Saudi Arabia without OPEC’s intervention is about $2 a barrel. Raising taxes on fuel – Al Gore’s mantra for almost decade – would plunge the US and most of Western Europe into a depression the likes of which hasn’t been seen in 70 years. Even if such a measure were attempt, it would result in revolution, and the tax raiser and their advocates would end up with the heads on pikes.
However, advocacy of such a position is wonderfully attractive as it is essentially cost-free. Such a thing would never happen so its supporters can scream all the want to without ever having to face the consequences. It’s easy for one to be for if one never has to pay for it.
As for suggestions that mass transit could somehow replace the car, this is patently impossible. Even in Japan, an island nation far more congested than America, people still have cars and still drive them. Gas prices hover at .90 cents per liter, or $4 per gallon. And these people have no petroleum reserves at all.
Government dictates are not always benign and are frequently detrimental. The rise of fascism in Europe, was a function of government intervention. The French (and Woodrow Wilson, that distinguish academic) demanded that Germany pay reparations to the victors of the Great War, an act which bankrupted the country and set the hyper-inflationary cycle we are both familiar with. Germany did not melt down from within, but from without. The Irish had plenty of food during the famine years, but the government in London forced the Irish tenant farmer to export what they could produce for the mother country and the expense of the Irish countryside. And the Irish haven’t forgotten this to this day.
As for this little piece
If condescention [sic] cloaked in piety is ineffective, then will pleading work? I doubt it. Will calm statement of the facts and stern warning with real dialogue work? No, because the hat trick is always, "then go off and do your thing" or "walk your walk". As if there is no moral obligation whatsoever to nature, neighbors, or future generations. Sorry, we're not going to let you dam the stream and take the water.
If you really wanted to do you part, then you would lead by example, rather than rant that everyone else has to change their ways in order to conform to your vision of the world. I heat my house with wood, and will add solar this year if market conditions allow. My wife takes mass transit to work daily and I work from home. Great. If my neighbor drives a Hummer, fine. I might think him a pig, but this is America, and he can do as he pleases.
Look, conservation is good thing. Plowing resources into finding alternatives is also a good thing. Launching the country into a mind-bending depression through government dictates to assuage the boomer guilt concerning undeserved prosperity does not in any way resemble the common good. It is merely one set of people telling another set of people how to live.
Pushing pistons is the way the world works. Until there is a real economically feasible alternative (as opposed to one offered in light of artificially inflated energy prices), petrol will be the fuel that powers the wheels of industry.
dpny
Like Messrs. Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, etc. - DP retreats to his tried and true rhetorical model - dismissal of conservation as "kooky", and insertion of personal and unfounded judgements (little insults in essence), all for rationalization of his myopic views to a like-minded audience. DP always wins this way! The insertion of "Taliban" into this discourse was so lame.
Comparison of ludditism to resource conservation is fallacious and a poor red herring. Neo-ludditism is oxymoronic and is only used by DP's ilk. Besides, what should be smashed is the old-existing machinery, not the new technology!
If condescention cloaked in piety is ineffective, then will pleading work? I doubt it. Will calm statement of the facts and stern warning with real dialogue work? No, because the hat trick is always, "then go off and do your thing" or "walk your walk". As if there is no moral obligation whatsoever to nature, neighbors, or future generations. Sorry, we're not going to let you dam the stream and take the water.
Laws, tax policy, and environmental policy exist for a reason. It's called the common good. It's surprising and sad that libertarians only have hindsight and no foresight. It's as if all environmental, tax, and social policy from this point forward is unneccesary and overly burdensome. It's as if DP believes we have reached true enlightenment and can progress no further in terms of social and environmental policy. This is myopia.
DP deserves only one more mulligan. In a momentary lapse of knowledge DP dismisses Malthus. He might as well dismiss Adam Smith, or elementary ecology. Hello? Irish potato famine? Ethiopia over and over again? Bangladesh? What about 20th Century Europe? You know, the big H. What could have possibly manifested that? Was it pure hatred only? Could it possibly have been a lack of resources? No, It just hasn't happened to DP personally so it doesn't exist! Myopia.
Innovation. Yeah, real innovation, I'll say. it seems to me we're still pushing pistons - going on 200 years.
For the umpteenth, and last time, this is the solution. You tax fossil fuels to the point of establishing self- sufficiency, or at least a ceiling consumption. You then use the proceeds to subsidize alternative mass transportation development, alternative technologies, and telecommuting technologies/policies. We may even be able to reduce income taxes with the proceeds.
Does that sound like rolling back the clock to you?
Comparison of ludditism to resource conservation is fallacious and a poor red herring. Neo-ludditism is oxymoronic and is only used by DP's ilk. Besides, what should be smashed is the old-existing machinery, not the new technology!
If condescention cloaked in piety is ineffective, then will pleading work? I doubt it. Will calm statement of the facts and stern warning with real dialogue work? No, because the hat trick is always, "then go off and do your thing" or "walk your walk". As if there is no moral obligation whatsoever to nature, neighbors, or future generations. Sorry, we're not going to let you dam the stream and take the water.
Laws, tax policy, and environmental policy exist for a reason. It's called the common good. It's surprising and sad that libertarians only have hindsight and no foresight. It's as if all environmental, tax, and social policy from this point forward is unneccesary and overly burdensome. It's as if DP believes we have reached true enlightenment and can progress no further in terms of social and environmental policy. This is myopia.
DP deserves only one more mulligan. In a momentary lapse of knowledge DP dismisses Malthus. He might as well dismiss Adam Smith, or elementary ecology. Hello? Irish potato famine? Ethiopia over and over again? Bangladesh? What about 20th Century Europe? You know, the big H. What could have possibly manifested that? Was it pure hatred only? Could it possibly have been a lack of resources? No, It just hasn't happened to DP personally so it doesn't exist! Myopia.
Innovation. Yeah, real innovation, I'll say. it seems to me we're still pushing pistons - going on 200 years.
For the umpteenth, and last time, this is the solution. You tax fossil fuels to the point of establishing self- sufficiency, or at least a ceiling consumption. You then use the proceeds to subsidize alternative mass transportation development, alternative technologies, and telecommuting technologies/policies. We may even be able to reduce income taxes with the proceeds.
Does that sound like rolling back the clock to you?
Malthus sounds good but has been wrong for more than two centuries. Innovation changes things. We were once dependent upon whale oil, until we found petrol. When it becomes cost effect to do so, we’ll switch to something else. Until then, neo-Ludditism solves nothing and only makes you angrier.
Look, I know you want to save the planet and you’re surrounded with wasteful pigs that have overdeveloped your personal paradise. But condescension cloaked in piety is both ugly and ineffective. If you prefer to live you life in a perfectly sustainable fashion, feel free. This is America and completely do-able. Go buy some land and live in a solar power yurt. Indeed, give me pointers as it is my goal to do something similar (I prefer stucco blockhouse surrounded by a forest of solar panels). But all your railing about fatheads in Florida driving Hummers with cell phones glued to their foreheads is cheap and makes you sound like a crackpot, complete with an aluminum foil hat.
Solutions, man, solutions. Going back to the 18th century is no better than being a member of the Taliban. Rolling back the clock is not an option. We have to deal with reality as we find it, not how you wish it to be.
dpny
Look, I know you want to save the planet and you’re surrounded with wasteful pigs that have overdeveloped your personal paradise. But condescension cloaked in piety is both ugly and ineffective. If you prefer to live you life in a perfectly sustainable fashion, feel free. This is America and completely do-able. Go buy some land and live in a solar power yurt. Indeed, give me pointers as it is my goal to do something similar (I prefer stucco blockhouse surrounded by a forest of solar panels). But all your railing about fatheads in Florida driving Hummers with cell phones glued to their foreheads is cheap and makes you sound like a crackpot, complete with an aluminum foil hat.
Solutions, man, solutions. Going back to the 18th century is no better than being a member of the Taliban. Rolling back the clock is not an option. We have to deal with reality as we find it, not how you wish it to be.
dpny
Yet more invective from the good doctor
AAS
Biodiesel? My response: 1st Law of Thermodynamics........
Corn requires nitrogen fertilizer, nitrogen fertilizer comes from the Haber process, which requires natural gas.
Corn and soybeans require superphosphate, superphosphate fertilizer comes from reacting mined phosphate rock with sulfuric acid, and sulfuric acid requires burning mined sulfur at high temperatures.
Corn and soybeans require potassium, K requires mineral mining.
After processing you must transport the fertilizer by rail and truck to the field.
Then you must apply the fertilizer with a diesel-driven tractor.
Oh, and you have to apply pumped water with a diesel-driven centrifugal pump.
Then you must harvest the corn with a diesel-driven combine.
Then you must process (esterify) the crop, oil, and waste, and that's not cheap.
It's a treadmill.
In the meantime, you have all this cheap available reduced carbon "goup" in the ground, and a vast majority of it is in the middle-east, and all you have to do is pump it out and it burns, baby! People will be fighting and dying for that oil for generations, and it is not going to be pretty.
Nice Try, but the truth won't go away. Our society (as we know it) is completely dependent on fossil fuel combustion. Nuclear, hydroelectric, wind power, geothermal, etc. is maybe 20% of total energy usage, and that's only in the developed world. Without the goup, you become third world, almost immediately. You got no propane, no electricity, no wood (chainsaws and wood-splitters), no gas to drive around and lull Izzy to sleep with, no plastic containers, no fresh tenderloin, etc. etc., ad nauseum. You and all your neighbors out there would quickly deforest your cliffside retreat. Surely to God, you know this.
Without a significant change in thinking, Malthusian reality will come with a vengeance in probably 10 generations And people do not change, nor do organisms really evolve, without first adapting to stress.
70's thinking? What about the truth?
AAS
From Dr. S, in a picque of rage regarding SUVs in Florida:
Sounds to me as if that Florida sun has finally cracked his melon.
Earth to Dr. S: telling other people how to live their lives is fascism. Look, we can convert to bio-diesel and cut our defendence on Mid-East oil (BTW, we get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela, not Kuwait , Iraq or Iran.)
Not that not buying another drop of crude from the Mid-East would stop our problems there. They hate us for who we are, supporters of freedom in general and Israel in particular. All those co-ed you see sashaying down the beaches in St. Augustine in skimpy attire are nothing more than the manifestation of Satan to these clowns. And they have a demostrated proclivity to want to kill Americans in America.
Sorry. Green is good idea that I practice in real-life. Yeah, I heat my house with wood and am doing so right now. But if you think all SUVs are superfluous planet killers, then maybe you should move to somewhere where they are a necessity: like upstate NY.
dpny
Numnuts:
I took the bait. This is unretractable, so you now have a copy which you may post (or repost) anywhere you see fit, just give me credit.
Environmentalists run amok? Sounds like another emotional response gleaned from the stuff you're reading. No, the truth is out there for you, and I trust that you have the intellect to read and make an informed decision. Just do a search on CAFE standards. I think you will find that it's purely special interest lobbying that created the loophole that Subaru is unfortunately using in order to compete. History is repeating itself here. Twice as many people are driving and average fuel economy is going down. Mass transit projects are stalled, and roads seem to be in a continual state of construction to increase capacity. I honestly scratch my head and wonder if we've lost our collective memory. I guess we have since a generation has passed.
I would agree that CAFE standards are not the way to go. If you're going to write a law that says you cannot kill rabbits with a rifle, but it's OK with a shotgun, then what's the sense of writing the law in the first place? Let the market make the correction. Either stop importing Arab oil, or tax the shit out of it! I personally believe that you and I should pay roughly twice the current price for fuel - plain and simple. I really don't care if people want to drive Abrams tanks down the road, it just shouldn't be subsidized in any way by the federal government. Oh, that includes military operations to secure "strategic interests".
Neither can I be convinced with myopic platitudes (a la Sean Hannity), that it's all gonna be OK, because technology is going to save us. Fuel Cells - Bullshit. Where the hell are you going to get the energy to reduce oxidized hydrogen (i.e. water)? Magic dust? Are we gonna construct huge solar panels over the ocean? People who cite fuel cells as saving grace have absolutely no understanding of redox chemistry and thermodynamics.
One can justify people's preferences, but that doesn't make it right. All you're really doing is putting on blinders and pretending that everything's OK. This is all consistent with my current understanding of the Republican mantra: natural resources are inexhaustible, oil reserves in the middle-east are imminent domain, the earth magically sucks up pollution, trade deficits and budget deficits don't matter, might makes right, and habitat destruction/species extinction have no real ecological or quality-of-life impact - just an unfortunate price for progress. All this rationalization for what? For a perceived unalienable right - as an American - to drive the largest metal box down a highway? Why is it so hard for people to see that an economy fueled primarily on the consumption of crude is unsustainable?
Finally, If Cowboy's administration allows mining interests to resume "mountaintop removal" to get at coal seams in the Appalachians, then he'll never get my vote - that's the straw.
Sounds to me as if that Florida sun has finally cracked his melon.
Earth to Dr. S: telling other people how to live their lives is fascism. Look, we can convert to bio-diesel and cut our defendence on Mid-East oil (BTW, we get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela, not Kuwait , Iraq or Iran.)
Not that not buying another drop of crude from the Mid-East would stop our problems there. They hate us for who we are, supporters of freedom in general and Israel in particular. All those co-ed you see sashaying down the beaches in St. Augustine in skimpy attire are nothing more than the manifestation of Satan to these clowns. And they have a demostrated proclivity to want to kill Americans in America.
Sorry. Green is good idea that I practice in real-life. Yeah, I heat my house with wood and am doing so right now. But if you think all SUVs are superfluous planet killers, then maybe you should move to somewhere where they are a necessity: like upstate NY.
dpny
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)